Earlier quoted context omitted.
In no particular order + Java doesn't promise "everything is an object." It has Base Types. + Python doesn't make a semantic promise that "everything is an object." Code for (3).fizzbuzz => "fizz" probably needs written in C because built-in types are closed and object literals use the built-in types. "3" cannot be forced to use a subclass of Integer. At the bottom, '3' is defined in terms of Types (i.e. "Built-in Ty…
probably needs written in C because built-in types are closed "Everything is an object" does not necessarily imply "all objects are always infinitely monkeypatchable at all times". It also doesn't necessarily imply "you can change how the parser interprets literals". You're also going to be really mad when you learn about __init_subclass__ and the fact that Python lets you write a class that can't be subclassed!
__init_subclass__ is a perfect example. Not at the level of what __init_subclass__ does. But that instead of implementing private methods, there's are rules around double underscore methods and double underscore methods have different behavior (name mangling). They don't actually make the method private, the actual name is not the name in the source, and the name is not anonomized.
I can see a rationale for making some methods private. I can see a rationale for making no methods private. Python doesn't make methods private and then deliberately makes it hard to reap the benefits of this design decision. Instead of implementing the design intent of private methods, what gets implemented are impediments to utilizing the absence of private methods.